[mburbank]

"what would one more missed opportunity mean to the American public at this point?"

Well, to this american, it would mean that while torture and the suspension of Habeas Corpus was still going on, there remained debate as to wether they were legal. It also meant that while our sytem of checks and balances was being ignored, that process had not been codified into law. Those things make a largeish difference to me, and if basic civics were still taught in school, it might make more of a basic difference to more people.

A 'do nothing' congress is preferable to one that legalizes torture.

"I think McCain wanted to denounce and forbid torturing rouge combatants, and that is what he has done."

Denounce, perhaps, but forbid? The law leaves interpretation solely to the President, and immunizes interrogators from prosecution, forbidding only murder, rape and maiming. It also leaves entirely and permanently secret what 'alternative methods' are. Do you read the law differently?
You don't need a laundry list. The geneva conventions don't have one. They are broad so that countries will be wary about possibly violating them. In addition, oversight by another branch of government about when and on whom these 'alternative methods' were approved would mean at very least there was the possability of interrogators being told they were going to far.

I can supply you with a handy, non laundry list deffinition of torture, and I think since inncoents can and have been swept up in the WOT, it's certainly applicable. If you were suspected of criminal wrong doing and believed to have information, Kevin, would it be all right to do it to you? Would you concider a speciffic practice an 'outrage upon your dignity'.

If a foreign country kidnapped W and smeared what they told him was menstrual blood on his face, would that be an outrage upon his dignity? If Donald Rumsfeld were made to stand with wires attached to his fingers and genitals, would that be an outrage upon his dignity? If Condi was stripped naked by armed men and menaced by dogs, would it outrage her dignity?

I would argue that it is unamerican to treat guilty parties this way, but lets leave that aside. What about the people we hold who it turns out have done nothing, and the people we catch who have no useful information. You can tell me we would never apply 'alternative methods' unless we were sure, but with no oversight, no check or balance, we are throwing away something essential about our country.

Kev, this isn't some highway bill passed in the dead of night and you can say "Hey, that's congress, whatttaya gona do?" This is torture and permanent emprisonment on the Presidents say so. Even if neither of those things ever happen, it strikes me as fundamentally unamerican to give the executive those powers.

Take a look at how the Presidents ability to define an 'enemy combatant' has been broadened, and concider that enemy combatants can now legally be made to vanish until the WOT ends. Suppose for a moment that this President is totally incapable of abusing that power. Is it a power he or future presidents should have? Doesn't it change the nation to codify those temptations in law?